Don’t Be A Fool For Divide & Rule: Unite and Fight the New World Order

30/07/2011 16:45

By Ron Logan.

In politics and sociology, ‘divide and rule’ (derived from Latin: ‘divide et impera’) (also known as ‘divide and conquer’) is a combination of political, military and economic strategy of gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of opponent’s power into chunks that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy (propaganda is an indispensable tool in such strategies). The divide and rule concept therefore refers to a strategy that breaks up existing power structures and prevents smaller power groups (e.g. ordinary people who are fighting for freedom and sovereignty) from linking up and becoming more effective. Such a strategy is very much being used against ordinary people right now by those assembling the globalists’ New World Order ‘scientific dictatorship’ and the strategy is rapidly being accelerated: uncontrolled immigration is thus encouraged by globalists and all immigrants are then scapegoated by globalists’ extreme-right-wing front-groups as stealing indigenous people’s jobs, benefits and housing; Muslims are scapegoated for globalists’ false-flag terror atrocities such as 9/11 and 7/7; and, most recently, nationalists, conservatives and Christians have been spuriously linked with the Behring-Breivik patsied false-flag atrocities in Oslo/Norway. Why is this being done? Quite simply they want ordinary people to fight each other instead of waking up to the genocidal New World Order conspiracy and dealing with the criminals responsible for that conspiracy.

Narrow-minded racist-based nationalism is for ignorant schmucks. It will lead to the destruction of the very sovereignty that those who are caught up in it claim to want to preserve. Poor immigrants are but mere pawns in a globalists’ grand chessboard and sacrificing such pawns in inter-ethnic or inter-religious violence is the pre-designed trap designed to checkmate all ordinary people from whatever background. Such tactics are an age-old scam. The maxims ‘divide et impera’ and ‘divide ut regnes’ were utilised by the Roman ruler Caesar and the French emperor Napoleon. There is the example of Gabinius parting the Jewish nation into five conventions, reported by Flavius Josephus in Book I, 169-170 of The Wars of the Jews (De bello Judaico). [1] Strabo also reports in Geography, 8.7.3 [2] that the Achaean League was gradually dissolved under the Roman possession of the whole of Macedonia, owing to them not dealing with the several states in the same way, but wishing to preserve some and to destroy others.

In more modern times, Traiano Boccalini cites “divide et impera” in La bilancia politica, 1,136 and 2,225 as a common principle in politics. The use of this technique is meant to empower the sovereign to control subjects, populations, or factions of different interests, who collectively might be able to oppose his rule. Machiavelli identifies a similar application to military strategy, advising in Book VI of The Art of War [3] (Dell’arte della guerra [4]), that a Captain should endeavour with every art to divide the forces of the enemy, either by making him suspicious of his men in whom he trusted, or by giving him cause that he has to separate his forces, and, because of this, become weaker.

The strategy of division and rule has been attributed to sovereigns ranging from Louis XI to the Hapsburgs. Edward Coke denounces it in Chapter I of the Fourth Part of the Institutes, reporting that when it was demanded by the Lords and Commons what might be a principal motive for them to have good success in Parliament, it was answered: “Eritis insuperabiles, si fueritis inseparabiles. Explosum est illud diverbium: Divide, & impera, cum radix & vertex imperii in obedientium consensus rata sunt.” (You would be insuperable if you were inseparable).

In a minor variation, Sir Francis Bacon wrote the phrase “separa et impera” in a letter to James I of 15 February 1615. James Madison made this recommendation in a letter to Thomas Jefferson of 24 October 1787,[5] which summarized the thesis of The Federalist #10 [6]: “Divide et impera, the reprobated axiom of tyranny, is under certain qualifications, the only policy, by which a republic can be administered on just principles.” In Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch by Immanuel Kant (1795), Appendix one, Divide et impera is the third of three political maxims, the others being Fac et excusa and Si fecisti, nega. [7]

Elements of this technique involve:

creating or encouraging divisions among the subjects in order to prevent alliances that could challenge the ruling elite

aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate with the ruling elite

fostering distrust and enmity between lower members of society

encouraging meaningless expenditures that reduce the capability for resistance

Historically, such strategies were used in many different ways by empires seeking to expand their territories. For example:

Africa:

In Africa, the divide and conquer strategy was used by foreign countries during the colonial and post-colonial period. Germany and Belgium ruled Rwanda and Burundi in a colonial capacity. Germany used the strategy of divide and conquer by placing members of the Tutsi minority in positions of power. When Belgium took over colonial rule in 1916, the Tutsi and Hutu groups were rearranged according to race instead of occupation. Belgium defined “Tutsi” as anyone with more than ten cows or a long nose, while “Hutu” meant someone with less than ten cows and a broad nose. The socioeconomic divide between Tutsis and Hutus continued after independence and was a major factor in the Rwandan Genocide.

The British rule of Sudan restricted access between the north and south regions of the country. The British did not place much emphasis on the development and governance of Southern Sudan. This disparity between north and south regions of Sudan led to the First and Second Sudanese Civil Wars. See also History of the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium. During British rule of Nigeria from 1900 to 1960, different regions were frequently reclassified for administrative purposes. The conflict between the Igbo and Hausa made it easier for the British to consolidate their power in the region. Regional, ethnic, and religious splits remain a barrier to uniting Nigeria. [8]

Cyprus:

Cyprus was placed under British control on 4 June 1878 as a result of the Cyprus Convention, which granted control of the island to Britain in return for British support of the Ottoman Empire in the Russian-Turkish War. Famagusta harbour was completed in June 1906. Construction of this harbour consolidated the island as a strategic naval outpost for the British Empire, which enabled it to have influence over the Eastern Mediterranean and Suez Canal, the crucial main route to India. The British Empire employed the divide and rule strategy with the Greek Cypriot majority and Turkish Cypriot minority living on the island to separate them and discourage intermingling. Cyprus Independence was attained in 1960 after negotiations between the United Kingdom, Greece and Turkey. Greece and Turkey are considered to be the cultural ‘motherlands’ for both communities living on Cyprus. The UK ceded the island under a constitution allocating government posts and public offices by ethnic quota and retained two Sovereign Base Areas. There is still an ongoing dispute on Cyprus.

Europe:

The first large-scale application of divide and rule techniques was in Macedonia. Romans entered Macedonia from the south and helped by Latin, Italian and Greek allies, they defeated King Perseus of Macedon in the battle of Pydna in 168 BC. Macedonia was then divided into four republics that were heavily restricted from intercourse or trade with one another and with Greece. There was a ruthless purge, with allegedly anti-Roman citizens being denounced by their compatriots and deported in large numbers.

Following the October revolution, the Bolsheviks engaged at various times in alliances with the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, certain anarchists, and various non-Russian ethnic nationalist groups, against the White movement, Right Socialist-Revolutionaries, and other anarchist and ethnic nationalist groups. This was done to establish the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (the Bolshevik party) as the sole legal party in the Soviet Union. Similar shifting alliances were played out amongst various dissident factions within the CPSU, such as the Workers Opposition and Left Communists, with Joseph Stalin and his supporters gaining absolute power within the party by the mid-1920s.

In Germany, alliances with various parties played a role in the Nazi Machtergreifung and Gleichschaltung, the seizure and consolidation of total power by the National Socialist German Workers Party. The Enabling Act, which banned the Communist and Social Democratic parties, was supported by the Nazi’s coalition partner, the German National People’s Party, as well as by the Centre Party. Several months later, all political parties in Germany were banned except for the NSDAP.

India:

The British employed masterly “Divide and Rule” tactics in British India as a means of preventing an uprising against the Raj. The partition of India is often attributed to these policies.[9]

In his historical survey entitled ‘Constantine’s Sword’, James P. Carroll writes: “Typically, imperial powers depend on the inability of oppressed local populations to muster a unified resistance, and the most successful occupiers are skilled at exploiting the differences among the occupied. Certainly that was the story of the British Empire’s success, and its legacy of nurtured local hatreds can be seen wherever the Union Flag flew, from Muslim-Hindu hatred in Pakistan and India, to Catholic-Protestant hatred in Ireland, to Jew-Arab, hatred in modern Israel. Ancient Rome was as good at encouraging internecine resentments among the occupied as Britain ever was.” [10]

Middle East

The Sykes-Picot Agreement was a classic and complicated tactic of multi-faceted divide-and-rule in Palestine.

In Persia, some argue that the development and propagation of the Bahai faith in the 1920s and onwards was a distinctly British tactic designed to add another “religious minority” to the Muslim fabric of the Middle-East, most notably in Iran and other lands with an Iranian populace. [11]

Mexico:

Chiapas conflict again has all the hallmarks of engineered divide-and-rule engineering.

The above are just a few examples of an age-old poltico-military-imperial tactic. Returning to the present day, ‘The Clash of Civilisations’ between Islam and the western ‘democracies’ has been much touted in mainstream globalists’-controlled media and academia. In his excellent article for The UK Column entitled ‘Who is the enemy? – or why we shouldn’t get sucked into The Clash Of Civilisations’[12], Mike Robinson cogently writes the following:

“How many times do we see round robin emails from people expressing a views such as: “Moderate Islam? … you must be joking. There aint no such thing.” We regularly hear about mosques being built next to Sandhurst, or on Ground Zero. Or we are sent a hundred images of middle-eastern looking people with banners screaming “be prepared for the real holocaust.”

The entire Islamic fundamentalist movement is British foreign policy. The “fifth column” which has been inhabiting our “establishment” (as well as that of the USA) since the end of the second world war, financed by international monied interests in the City of London and Wall Street, is the true source.

Godfather of this policy is Bernard Lewis. Born in 1916 to middle-class Jewish parents in Stoke Newington, Lewis gained a doctorate in the history of Islam from the University of London School of Oriental and African Studies. During the second world war, he was a military intelligence officer, and later seconded to the Foreign Office. He refuses to give further details. After the war, he worked as a lecturer at the School of Oriental and African Studies, and in 1949, at the age of 33, he was appointed to the new chair in Near and Middle Eastern History.

In 1974, he was posted to Princeton University’s Center for Advanced Studies. It can be demonstrated that since his arrival at Princeton, Lewis has been responsible for every piece of strategic folly into which the USA has been drawn in the middle east.

For example, he was the architect of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s “Arc of Crisis” policy of fomenting Muslim Brotherhood fundamentalist insurrections all along the southern borders of the Soviet Union. The planned fostering of radical Islamist war provocations was known, at the time, as “the Bernard Lewis Plan.”

Some of the results of this Lewis-Brzezinski collusion:

- the February 1979 Ayatollah Khomeini “Islamic Revolution” in Iran, which overthrew the Shah, and sent the once-proud center of the Islamic Renaissance back into a dark age

- the 1979-1988 Afghanistan War, provoked by Brzezinski’s July 1979 launching of covert support for Afghan mujahideenn, six months prior to the Red Army’s Christmas Eve invasion.

As early as 1960, in a book-length study he had prepared for the Royal Institute for International Affairs, under the title “The Emergence of Modern Turkey,” Lewis argued against the modernising, nation-building legacy of Turkey’s Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. He argued instead for the revival of an Ottoman Empire that could be used as a British geopolitical battering ram against Russia and against the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, in alliance with Israel.

But it is for the hoax of the “Clash of Civilisations” that Lewis is most famous, and it is in recognition of this policy that the alarm bells of us all should be ringing, for it is this policy which is being stoked by those who foment anti-Islamic feeling today. And it is the trap set by this policy which those who send the round robin emails fall into.

The term “Clash of Civilisations” first appeared in an Atlantic Monthly article written by Lewis called “The Roots of Muslim Rage,” published in September 1990. Samuel Huntingdon’s subsequent diatribe, originally published in the Council on Foreign Relations’ Foreign Affairs magazine, was a poor caricature of this more sophisticated historical fraud, which painted Islam as being engaged in a fourteen century long war against Christianity.

In 1992, Lewis continued the hoax in Foreign Affairs magazine. He postulated that the era of the nation-state in the Middle East had come to an inglorious end.

“The eclipse of pan-Arabism,” Lewis wrote, “has left Islamic fundamentalism as the most attractive alternative to all those who feel that there has to be something better, truer, and more hopeful than the inept tyrannies of their rulers and the bankrupt ideologies foisted on them from outside.” The Islamists represent “a network outside the control of the state … The more oppressive the regime, the greater the help it gives to fundamentalists by eliminating competing oppositionists.”

He concluded the Foreign Affairs piece by forecasting the “Lebanonisation” of the entire region (degeneration into fratricidal violence and chaos), with the exception of Israel: “Most of the states of the Middle East … are of recent and artificial construction and are vulnerable to such a process. If the central power is sufficiently weakened, there is no real civil society to hold the polity together, no real sense of common national identity or overriding allegiance to the nation-state. The state then disintegrates—as happened in Lebanon—into a chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects, tribes, regions and parties.”

In 1998, Lewis wrote another article for Foreign Affairs magazine, entitled “License To Kill: Osama bin Laden’s Declaration Of Jihad.” In it, he heaped praise on bin Laden’s “Declaration of Jihad Versus Jews and Crusaders,” saying it was “a magnificent piece of eloquent, at times even poetic Arabic prose … which reveals a version of history that most Westerners will find unfamiliar.”

Lewis has passed his views on to his son, Michael, who is director of the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee’s super-secret “opposition research section.” This is one of the most important wellsprings of propaganda and disinformation, which continues to saturate the U.S. Congress and American media with war-cries for precisely the Clash of Civilizations Bernard Lewis has been promoting for decades.

So the next time you receive an email showing images of Islamic demonstrators with plaquards demanding “the real holocaust,” or whenever you hear of a mosque being built in the most offensive location, ask yourself, who is the enemy here? Who is it that is giving permission for that mosque to be built? Who is it that is financing the build?

Who are the people holding the plaquards? Where do they come from? Are they representative of the Islamic community, or are they agents provocateur, financed by the same anti-nation state elite that Bernard Lewis represents?

If we allow ourselves to be drawn in by this kind of divide and conquer propoganda, it can only end one way – the end of the nation state, global chaos, and the “Clash of Civilisations.”"